NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/society/376

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 8.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!socicom
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 12:11:16 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.55
Approved: [e-mail] 01/23/93 11:14:28
Sender: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.society
Lines: 169

[See the end of this article for information about obtaining the full
CAF-News electronically and about CAF-News in general.]

Topics discussed in CAF-News 02.55:

   1-2    review the case of Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State
               University whose behavior on OSU systems led to his expulsion
   3-10   discuss sexual harassment policy generally, and how it relates to
               sysadmin policy specifically

Abstract of CAF-News 02.55:
[Week ending November 8, 1992

============================= KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily our opinions.
==================================================================

  [We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
   email to [e-mail].  - Carl]

Notes 1-2 review the case of Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State
University whose behavior on OSU systems led to his expulsion.

1.  Carl Kadie: "Talking with him via the Net and on the phone, I was
astounded at how sloppy OSU was with due process. For example, they didn't
even tell him what he was charged with until he asked. Then they listed
things he was accused of doing and (vague) rules that we was accused of
breaking but would not say which action(s) they thought violated which
rule(s). Finally, when he was expelled, they listed only the rules they had
determined he had violated but included no 'finding of fact' as to which
actions they had determined he had actually done."
        <[e-mail]>

2.  Steven Brack: "There was never a formal decision issued by the
[disciplinary] panel, only a finding that I violated said provisions of OSU's
rules. [...] I was not allowed to  call witnesses from ACS [Acad. Comp.
Services], nor to compel any witnesses to testify, no matter what their
relation to the case.  (Prof. John Bridge, who  brought the complaint about
my posting the word 'fuck' to a  newsgroup, for example.)  I was not allowed
to put questions to the witnesses, but rather could only suggest questions to
the panel. I was not allowed to introduce documentary evidence that would
have  shown that ACS gave me permission to do everything I did.  Matters of
ACS procedures, including the lack of published rules, were likewise off
limits.  Despite this, the hearing lasted over 5 hours, one of the longest
they could remember, with my closing argument taking over 30 minutes,
including interruptions by the chair, when he thought I was saying things
that weren't 'at issue.'"
        <[e-mail]>

Notes 3-10 discuss sexual harassment policy generally, and how it relates
to sysadmin policy specifically.

3.  "Part of the problem of rules about sexual harassment is that they are
rules, but they are not rules. I wonder what the word 'informally' means in
the phrase 'empowered to informally resolve'?  I don't think the phrase
really means anything, but it is often the heart of the sexual harassment
policy. Informality precludes empowerment. Informal means outside of the
normal rules and regulations. I think that the informality gives sysadmins
more flexibility in their handling of these cases. [...] It seems to me that
harassment claims are a pretty difficult subject, and may be more complicated
when computer networks are involved."
        <[e-mail]>

4.  "The point that we as system administrators and managers must address is
the following:  is our task in this arena to do everything possible to avoid
a lawsuit against the company or university no matter how ludicrous, but
technically possible, the scenario; or is our task to manage the system in a
reasonable way, doing our best to balance the rights and resposibilities of
all the users in accordance with company or university policies?"
        <[e-mail]>

5.  And so, tempting though it may be for a sysadmin to step in and arbitrate
"complaints of unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature (some user displaying
sexually oriented images on their screen in a public lab, for example), I
think your options are much more limited if you wish to reduce the
possibility that the university, and perhaps you personally, will be named in
a sexual harassment lawsuit."  In fact, your *only* option in this situation
is "Refer the matter to my supervisors."
        <[e-mail]>

6.  The author quotes Rice University's sexual harassment policy at length,
and comments: "I am suggesting that system administrators or supervisors are
elevating the risks to themselves and their companies or universities by
ignoring the complaint or telling the complainant to ignore the behavior.  I
am suggesting that system administrators not involve themselves in
determining if a complaint is legitimate or reasonable if they don't have
to."
        <[e-mail]>

7.  What about using the guideline of harassment being that which "a
reasonable person would find offensive, humiliating, or [an] interference
with his or her required tasks or career opportunities at the University"?
Well, that would seem to come later in the process than the time of the
complaint.  So, once again, when you get a complaint, pass it on!
        <[e-mail]>

8.  "There is also the problem of setting the 'reasonable' standards, e.g.
there may be 'womens' groups with an idea of what the 'reasonable woman'
finds accetable, are there directly equivalent 'mens' groups to present
a model for what the 'reasonable man' finds acceptable and unaccetpable?
The latter, if they exist, appear to be lacking in the publicity department."
        <[e-mail]>

9.  "Reasonable people can still disagree -- I can quite reasonably believe
that  my putting a racy GIF on my background window is protected speech; I
also think it's reasonable that my (female) supervisor would find it
bothersome. [...] If no compromise can be reached, and if neither party will
back down, one side must give in.  Sometime, the question of "who should back
down" must ultimately be settled in the courts.
        <[e-mail]>

10.  "This discussion, we should recall, started about the alleged 'sexual
harassment' nature of what a user chooses to display on hir windowed-screen
background.  If such choices, which are so obviously in the nature of
free-speech expressions, are to be labeled 'sexual harassment' under the
'hostile environment' doctrine, then the 'must be of a sexual nature' clause
which you take as a given (and would make sense!) is NOT guaranteed AT ALL.
[...] The threshold, in my humble opinion, was crossed when it was conceded
that a 'free expression'-nature act, such as the choice of what to wear or
what to display in one's personal working environment, was in any way
equivalent to 'harassing' somebody else sexually, with unwelcome sexual
advances."
        <[e-mail]>

- Elizabeth, Aaron ]


About CAF-News:

The abstract is for the most recent "Computers and Academic Freedom News"
(CAF-News). The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n55".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
[e-mail]. Include the line:

send caf-news cafv02n55


CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.

CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
[e-mail]. Include the line

send acad-freedom caf

Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
[e-mail]. Include the lines:

send acad-freedom README
help
index

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, John F. Nixon, Aaron Barnhart, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not
an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her own.


--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =[e-mail], [e-mail] =